WO2004102432A2 - Performance management by results-based scorecarding - Google Patents
Performance management by results-based scorecarding Download PDFInfo
- Publication number
- WO2004102432A2 WO2004102432A2 PCT/CA2004/000682 CA2004000682W WO2004102432A2 WO 2004102432 A2 WO2004102432 A2 WO 2004102432A2 CA 2004000682 W CA2004000682 W CA 2004000682W WO 2004102432 A2 WO2004102432 A2 WO 2004102432A2
- Authority
- WO
- WIPO (PCT)
- Prior art keywords
- performance
- elements
- phase
- defining
- indicator
- Prior art date
Links
Classifications
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
- G06Q—INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY [ICT] SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES; SYSTEMS OR METHODS SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES, NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR
- G06Q10/00—Administration; Management
- G06Q10/06—Resources, workflows, human or project management; Enterprise or organisation planning; Enterprise or organisation modelling
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
- G06Q—INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY [ICT] SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES; SYSTEMS OR METHODS SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES, NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR
- G06Q10/00—Administration; Management
- G06Q10/06—Resources, workflows, human or project management; Enterprise or organisation planning; Enterprise or organisation modelling
- G06Q10/063—Operations research, analysis or management
- G06Q10/0637—Strategic management or analysis, e.g. setting a goal or target of an organisation; Planning actions based on goals; Analysis or evaluation of effectiveness of goals
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
- G06Q—INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY [ICT] SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES; SYSTEMS OR METHODS SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES, NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR
- G06Q10/00—Administration; Management
- G06Q10/06—Resources, workflows, human or project management; Enterprise or organisation planning; Enterprise or organisation modelling
- G06Q10/063—Operations research, analysis or management
- G06Q10/0639—Performance analysis of employees; Performance analysis of enterprise or organisation operations
- G06Q10/06393—Score-carding, benchmarking or key performance indicator [KPI] analysis
Definitions
- the present invention relates to performance management by results- based scorecarding and is particularly concerned with ongoing cyclical program management.
- MBO Management by Objectives
- the Baldrige Quality Management system is a rigorously designed and meticulously applied methodology using seven specific categories of criteria, eleven specific core values and five key characteristics which are related by a composite of indicators,. balanced-strategies, results, assessments and a scoring system.
- the net aim is to produce a particular grade of performance quality in an organization.
- the Balanced Scorecard Collaborative system uses a system of strategies, perspectives, measures, assessments and scorecards with a focus on maintaining a balance of priorities among the specified perspectives.
- Perspectives are normally representative of business aspects and stakeholders.
- a public sector example might name the perspectives of citizens, Budget, Internal Business Processes and Organization Capacity.
- a set of scorecards is published at points during the year, each scorecard having the required data entered for each of the perspectives including their respective objectives, measures and performances.
- the resulting scorecard is used to assess the degree of balance of the status among all the perspectives, with intent to direct management attention and effort to out-of-balance perspectives.
- An object of the present invention is to provide an improved performance management system predicated upon results-based scorecarding.
- a method for controlling a set of elements defined in a plan having the following steps. First, defining a set of performance indicators corresponding to said elements, said performance indicators indicative of objects or physical activity. Next, establishing a plurality of phases, each of said phases corresponding to a subset of the elements of said set of elements and at least one of said phases being an evaluation phase. Next, publishing a record at intervals of time, at least one interval coinciding with an annual management cycle, said record comprising a quantification of said performance indicators at the time of publishing.
- the published record may be in the form of a table.
- a desired target quantity may be associated with a particular performance indicator, and a date associated with the target quantity.
- TM According to another aspect of the invention there is a method where the number of the plurality phases is established at six. First, establishing an inputs phase wherein approvals are obtained for the plan. Next, establishing an activities phase wherein structures for executing the elements are defined. Next, establishing an outputs phase wherein the structures are implemented. Next, establishing an immediate outcomes phase wherein a set of products of the structures are quantified. Next, establishing an intermediate outcomes phase wherein a set of quality assessments of said set of products are quantified. Next, establishing a strategic outcomes phase wherein an assessment of an overall performance against said plan is quantified. Finally, publishing at intervals of time a record of such quantifications as have been achieved at that point in time.
- a reference indicator associated with each performance indicator and conveying information about syntax and phase relationship among plan elements.
- the reference indicator may be a combination of alphabetic and numeric characters conveying information about which element and phase a respective performance indicator relates to as well as enumerating the performance indicators related to a given element.
- the published form of the records may be in tabular format for ready association of plan elements, performance indicators, results, and other recorded values.
- FIG. 1 is a diagram of an example empt record relating elements, performance indicators, data sources and phases according to an embodiment of the invention.
- FIG. 2 is a diagram of an example empty record relating reference indicators, performance indicators, formulaic expressions, and target quantities according to an embodiment of the invention.
- FIG. 3 is a plot of an example empty record relating reference indicators, performance indicator values, status, targets, and performance indication according to an embodiment of the invention.
- FIG. 4 is a diagram of an example record with entries relating elements, performance indicators, data sources and phases according to an embodiment of the invention.
- FIG. 5 is a diagram of an example record with entries relating reference indicators, performance indicators, formulaic expressions, data sources, and target quantities according to an embodiment of the invention.
- FIG. 6 is a plot of an example record with entries relating reference indicators, performance indicator values, status, targets, and performance indication according to an embodiment of the invention.
- this method will use as an input a plan, typically defined by management, having elements which describe desired results of the plan.
- the plan could be for a program or business line or organizational unit.
- the performance indicators are subject matter representative of or constituting physical activities or objects.
- the records are tabular in form. Certain of such records could conveniently be referred to as scorecards in terms of their use in tracking the performance indicators related to the plan elements.
- FIG. 1 provides an example of an initial record form that that an owner would fill to provide some of the basic information needed to build a scorecard.
- FIG. 1 may be seen a series of column headings that represent phases 100 of the plan.
- a typical plan has a plurality of phases as indicated.
- the tabular format conveniently relates the elements to the other aspects of the plan.
- FIG. 2 may be seen an example of another record form that an owner would fill in to provide further information necessary to build a scorecard.
- FIG. 2 may be seen a series of columns denoting reference indicators 210, performance indicators 220, formula keys 230 and target quantities 240.
- a specific reference indicator is a means of identifying a respective performance indicator.
- a preferred version constitutes a hash of a numeric portion representing a phase and an alphabetic portion representing an element as well as a further numeric portion further specify which of a potential plurality of performance indicators.
- Such a combination provides syntax information as to order of performance indicators. As such a given performance indicator may be readily correlated to a phase and element of the plan.
- the formula keys associated with each performance indicator comprise formulaic expressions which yield a quantitative value.
- the formulaic expression will typically draw upon data from the data sources specified in the previously discussed record.
- the formulaic expressions will be quantitative indications representative of objects or physical activities.
- the target quantity represents a desired achievement expressed in the same units as the formulaic expressions. There may be a date (not shown in the present example) associated with the respective target quantity.
- FIG. 3 may be seen an example of another record form that an owner would fill in to represent the results at a particular publication time.
- FIG. 3 may be seen a series of columns denoting reference indicators 310, performance indicators 320, status 355, results 330, target quantities 340 and performance ranking 350.
- a specific reference indicator is a means of identifying a respective performance indicator as per the previously described record.
- the results 330 provide a point for the quantitative value of the performance indicator as calculated by its respective formulaic expression to be recorded.
- the quantitative value is calculated pertinent to the publication point in time and thus represents a report on the state of results at that particular point in time for that particular element.
- the respective target quantities are those described previously.
- the performance ranking 350 provides a point for an entry representing a comparison of the actuals of a particular performance indicator versus its respective target quantity.
- An example performance ranking might be a percent calculation showing what percent of the target results the actuals has attained at the publication point.
- the status 355 provides the point for an entry relating the performance to a threshold or a set of thresholds.
- An example status might be an iconic indicator with a particular color for an actual more than 80% complete, and a different color for performance indicator with an actual which has a current result of less than 10% of its respective target.
- the thresholds and performance indicators could be recorded as supplemental entries to the record described in FIG.2.
- FIG. 4 may be seen a partially filled-in example of the record described previously with reference to FIG. 1.
- the first row describes six phases that comprise an annual results-based management cycle. Although there may be as many phases as the owner desires, an average of six would be sufficient to meet the particular results-based scorecards system requirements for this example.
- phase are numbered, elements have capital letters and performance indicators have numbers corresponding to the phases, capital letters corresponding to the elements, and further numbers accounting for the case of a plurality of performance indicators directed to the same element within a phase.
- the reference indicator schema used allows one to quickly ascertain the actuals and phases related to any performance indicator and to quickly track and identify linked items in the system.
- Input Phase 1 is the initial Phase at the start of the fiscal year. It represents the initially approved yearly management plans and funding or budget for the program or business line or organizational unit.
- Results of the Input Phase are the critical elements required for the management of the program or business line or organizational unit during the annual business cycle.
- Each element is then tracked during the subsequent phases of the publication cycle through corresponding results in the subsequent phases.
- element 1 A in Phase 1 is directly related to element 2A in Phase 2, 3A in Phase 3 etc.
- Each related element in the subsequent phases generally represents a managerial milestone for the essential category element 1A. The milestones are explained for each subsequent phase below.
- the later Phases 5 and 6 usually have fewer elements than the preceding phases. That is because these phases describe higher-level organizational elements and that the earlier lower-level elements tend to be grouped into the fewer higher-level elements. Also, there can be in any phase, particularly the later ones, stand-alone elements that appear and have their own stand-alone performance indicators.
- a preferred approach illustrated in this example is that only the total funding is given for each Phase, i.e. there is no breakdown by element. This assists in discouraging micro-management by more senior managers which should only be concerned with macro-management and exception reporting.
- the Total funding performance indicator is usually associated with the most important of the elements.
- Exception reporting would generally occur when a performance indicator's result is less than 90% of its target quantity at the target date for that performance indicator. Then the published record or scorecard (e.g. a record as in FIG. 3 with appropriate entries) will signal the need for an exception report for that performance indicator. At this point the performance indicator becomes a risk indicator. The owner of that Scorecard/Phase/Result/lndicator will typically have to supply a comment for that performance indicator. For that purpose, it is likely that the owners of scorecards would get to see the scorecards first so that they could provide explanatory comments before more senior management sees the scorecards. The comment might advise as to what risk management plan covers this eventuality and what identified risk contingencies have been put into place. Alternatively, if the risk management plan did not cover the cause of the exception then the comment might state this fact and that the exception will be incorporated into future risk management plans, as well as what temporary contingencies have been put in place.
- the risk management plan did not cover the cause of the exception then the comment might state this fact
- Results identify the main activities required to set up the structures required for the corresponding Phase 1 Results' management plans. There is usually at least one Activities Result corresponding to each preceding Input Phase Result. Examples could be setting up IT requirements specifications or partnership structures [0047] In addition to the Total Activities funding or budget Performance
- Activities Performance Indicator there is usually at least one Activities Performance Indicator for each Activities Result. These indicators would typically represent a most important quantifiable structural characteristic of each Activities Result. Examples could be the number of IT specifications required or the number of negotiations required to set-up a business line or an oversight committee.
- Phase 3 in FIG. 4 is the Outputs Phase and this phase's Results identify the main result of the Activities Phase Results. There is usually at least one Outputs Result corresponding to each preceding Activities Phase Result. Examples might be IT requirements service agreements or the number of business line final agreements.
- Indicator there is usually at least one Outputs performance indicator for each Outputs Result.
- These Indicators represent the most important quantifiable output characteristic of each Outputs Result. Examples could be the number of signed agreements or the number of internal critical actions required to manage an organizational unit. Note that these Indicators would also relate to the preceding Activities Phase's corresponding Indicators.
- Phase 4 in FIG. 4 is the Immediate Outcomes Phase and this Phase's
- Phases Results identify the main result of the Outputs Phase Results.
- This Phases Results represent the main items produced by the program or business line or organizational unit during the business cycle. There is usually at least one Immediate Outcomes Result corresponding to each preceding Outputs Phase Result. Examples would be IT Tools and services produced/provided or the number of business line products sold.
- Immediate Outcomes performance indicator for each Immediate Outcomes Result.
- These performance indicators might represent the most important quantifiable product characteristic of each Immediate Outcomes Result. Examples could be the number of products sold or deliverables received or goals achieved. Note that these Indicators could also relate to the preceding Inputs Phase's corresponding Indicators.
- Phase 5 in FIG. 4 is the Intermediate Outcomes Phase and this phase's
- Results evaluate the main results of the Outputs Phase Results or the implementation of the overall management plan Results of the Input Phase. There could usually be at least one Intermediate Outcomes Result corresponding to each preceding Immediate Outcomes Phase Result. However, this Phase's Results start to represent higher-level organizational Results. As such there may be fewer Results into which the more numerous previous Phases' Results blend. Examples would be progress made toward achieving homogeneous organizational goals or the identification and sharing of best practices.
- Phase 6 in FIG. 4 is the Strategic Outcomes Phase and this phase's
- Results represent the highest level organizational strategic Results. As such there are usually fewer Results than in previous Phases. Nonetheless the preceding Intermediate Phase Results should easily correspond and blend into the fewer Strategic Results. Examples might be national and international Results.
- the first performance indicator is the Total Program funding or Total
- the target quantity for this indicator should be the same value as for the Phase 1 Total Inputs funding or Total Budget performance Indicator.
- FIG. 4 provides a filled-in example containing the basic information that is required to build the basic scorecard.
- a computer system using performance management software is utilized for data capture and record publication.
- FIG. 5 provides a filled-in example table that each scorecard owner/manager would fill to provide the formulaic key and target quantity for each performance indicator. Again, typically a computer system using performance management software is utilized for data capture and record publication.
- the Ref and Performance Indicators columns list the reference indicator and performance indicators respectively that were developed and are listed in the Performance Indicators row of the table depicted in FIG. 4 described above.
- the Keys column describes the quantitative formula used to arrive at the results value for each performance indicator.
- Data for the quantitative formula is located in the Data Sources row of the table depicted in FIG. 4 described above.
- the Target Quantities are able to be calculated according to the same quantitative formula.
- An optional record (not illustrated) denoting the respective rationale for each target quantity may be used.
- the Target Quantities are typically set and approved by the appropriate level of management prior to the annual funding or business cycle.
- FIG. 6 provides a partially filled-in example containing the basic information that is required to build the basic scorecard.
- a computer system using performance management software is utilized for data capture and record publication at the various publication points in time.
- Indicators columns list the reference indicator and performance indicators respectively that were developed and are listed in the Performance Indicators row of the record described in the description of FIG. 5 described above.
- the Results column contains the results values for the performance indicators that are to be published in the record at the time of publication. As mentioned in the description of FIG. 5, these values are computed using the quantitative formulaic expression provided.
- the Target column contains the respective values that were recorded in the description of FIG. 5.
- the Performance column contains a formula for each performance indicator which compares the Results value to the Target Quantity and arrives at a measure to compare to a previously determined of threshold value or values.
- a preferred formula is to express the Results value as a percentage of the Target Quantity. For illustrative purposes, that is the formula that will be utilized here.
- the Status column provides an entry for an iconic indicator which indicates if a performance indicator's Performance relative to the threshold value or values.
- iconic indicators are using visual symbols such as a green upwards pointing arrow for above threshold values, a yellow horizontal arrow for equal to threshold values and a downward pointing red arrow for below threshold values. The below threshold values would thus be flagged so that more senior management viewing the scorecard would be alerted that this Indicator/Result/Phase/Scorecard merited further investigation.
- FIG. 1 described above may be considered the visual representation of the Logic Model resulting from the application of the method to a program or organization. This Logic Model can then be used to describe the essential "raison d'etre" of the program or organization in question.
- FIG. 1 also represents a vertical or more hierarchic representation of a Logic Model suited to vertical programs or organizations. Application of the method to a horizontal organization or business line will result in a horizontal Logic Model which includes the same steps and possibilities as the vertical application described in this application.
- the resulting Logic Model will be circular in nature with the last or Strategic Outcomes Phase connecting to the first Input Phase in a circle of phases emphasizing the lifecycle aspect.
- a management approval system for the management plans including the approval of all the plan elements described above: including the scorecards, phases, results, performance/risk indicators, target quantity and their keys, threshold values, publishing dates, scorecard owners, risk management plans and proposed risk solutions when target thresholds are not met, etc.
- the method provides, as mentioned before, a lifecycle system.
- a lifecycle system This means that although the system includes the multiple phases described above, it is not limited to the number described: there can be fewer or more numerous phases as long as the integrity of the lifecycle approach is maintained.
- the cycle has to include the various results described for each phase but these results can be compressed into fewer and more general phases or expanded into more numerous and detailed phases.
- the final phase can be expanded to include as a result, the management plans and requested funding/budgets for the next cycle.
- a performance management system and business method that allows private or public sector managers to manage, on an on-going basis, their business lines or programs at any level in their organizations, i.e. from the top strategic level to the hands-on operational level has been disclosed.
- this performance management system is a stand-alone system which can be utilized on manually-filled forms or with basic spreadsheet and graphic software packages, it is contemplated to be easily implemented with existing Performance Management Software Systems such as SAS Strategic Performance Management software or the SAP ⁇ R3 Strategic Enterprise Management (SEM) Module.
- SAS Strategic Performance Management software or the SAP ⁇ R3 Strategic Enterprise Management (SEM) Module.
- This performance management method can be utilized by a single organizational unit and is also scalable to any size organization.
- the method is flexible and can be adapted to meet the requirements of a wide type of organizational structures, e.g. hierarchical or horizontal or networking structures.
- This performance management method is readily adapted to a lifecycle management approach, including an evaluation phase, based on an annual (calendar or financial) management cycle. It promotes the sharing and early warning of management problems and proposed solutions without encouraging micro- management.
- the overall system encourages an iterative, continuous learning approach to management while focusing on accountability, results and risk management.
Landscapes
- Business, Economics & Management (AREA)
- Human Resources & Organizations (AREA)
- Engineering & Computer Science (AREA)
- Strategic Management (AREA)
- Economics (AREA)
- Entrepreneurship & Innovation (AREA)
- Educational Administration (AREA)
- Development Economics (AREA)
- Game Theory and Decision Science (AREA)
- Marketing (AREA)
- Operations Research (AREA)
- Quality & Reliability (AREA)
- Tourism & Hospitality (AREA)
- Physics & Mathematics (AREA)
- General Business, Economics & Management (AREA)
- General Physics & Mathematics (AREA)
- Theoretical Computer Science (AREA)
- Management, Administration, Business Operations System, And Electronic Commerce (AREA)
Description
Claims
Priority Applications (3)
Application Number | Priority Date | Filing Date | Title |
---|---|---|---|
EP04731560A EP1625536A1 (en) | 2003-05-15 | 2004-05-07 | Performance management by results-based scorecarding |
CA002523044A CA2523044A1 (en) | 2003-05-15 | 2004-05-07 | Performance management by results-based scorecarding |
AU2004239364A AU2004239364A1 (en) | 2003-05-15 | 2004-05-07 | Performance management by results-based scorecarding |
Applications Claiming Priority (2)
Application Number | Priority Date | Filing Date | Title |
---|---|---|---|
US10/439,145 | 2003-05-15 | ||
US10/439,145 US20040230463A1 (en) | 2003-05-15 | 2003-05-15 | Performance management by results-based scorecarding |
Publications (1)
Publication Number | Publication Date |
---|---|
WO2004102432A2 true WO2004102432A2 (en) | 2004-11-25 |
Family
ID=33417737
Family Applications (1)
Application Number | Title | Priority Date | Filing Date |
---|---|---|---|
PCT/CA2004/000682 WO2004102432A2 (en) | 2003-05-15 | 2004-05-07 | Performance management by results-based scorecarding |
Country Status (5)
Country | Link |
---|---|
US (1) | US20040230463A1 (en) |
EP (1) | EP1625536A1 (en) |
AU (1) | AU2004239364A1 (en) |
CA (1) | CA2523044A1 (en) |
WO (1) | WO2004102432A2 (en) |
Families Citing this family (17)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
US8595051B2 (en) * | 2003-12-24 | 2013-11-26 | Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. | Metrics capability self assessment |
US7729934B1 (en) | 2005-09-20 | 2010-06-01 | Sprint Communications Company L.P. | System and method for strategic intent mapping |
US8261181B2 (en) | 2006-03-30 | 2012-09-04 | Microsoft Corporation | Multidimensional metrics-based annotation |
US7840896B2 (en) | 2006-03-30 | 2010-11-23 | Microsoft Corporation | Definition and instantiation of metric based business logic reports |
US7716592B2 (en) * | 2006-03-30 | 2010-05-11 | Microsoft Corporation | Automated generation of dashboards for scorecard metrics and subordinate reporting |
US7831464B1 (en) | 2006-04-06 | 2010-11-09 | ClearPoint Metrics, Inc. | Method and system for dynamically representing distributed information |
US8190992B2 (en) | 2006-04-21 | 2012-05-29 | Microsoft Corporation | Grouping and display of logically defined reports |
US7716571B2 (en) | 2006-04-27 | 2010-05-11 | Microsoft Corporation | Multidimensional scorecard header definition |
US20070283326A1 (en) * | 2006-06-01 | 2007-12-06 | Consolatti Scott M | System for Defining and Evaluating Target Thresholds Against Performance Metrics |
US9058307B2 (en) | 2007-01-26 | 2015-06-16 | Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc | Presentation generation using scorecard elements |
US8321805B2 (en) | 2007-01-30 | 2012-11-27 | Microsoft Corporation | Service architecture based metric views |
US8495663B2 (en) | 2007-02-02 | 2013-07-23 | Microsoft Corporation | Real time collaboration using embedded data visualizations |
US20090076867A1 (en) * | 2007-09-14 | 2009-03-19 | Accenture Global Services, Gmbh | Balanced scorecard and reporting tool |
US20140379435A1 (en) * | 2013-05-07 | 2014-12-25 | Isam Yahia AL-FILALI | Reyada system and method for performance management, communication, strategic planning, and strategy execution |
EP2806381A1 (en) * | 2013-05-20 | 2014-11-26 | Tata Consultancy Services Limited | Viable system of governance for service provisioning engagements |
JP2021174112A (en) * | 2020-04-21 | 2021-11-01 | 株式会社日立製作所 | Hypothesis evaluation system, and hypothesis evaluation method |
US20220327459A1 (en) * | 2021-04-07 | 2022-10-13 | Edgar Quinones | Performance management business method |
Family Cites Families (11)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
US6339775B1 (en) * | 1997-11-07 | 2002-01-15 | Informatica Corporation | Apparatus and method for performing data transformations in data warehousing |
US6995768B2 (en) * | 2000-05-10 | 2006-02-07 | Cognos Incorporated | Interactive business data visualization system |
US20010053993A1 (en) * | 2000-05-17 | 2001-12-20 | Mclean Robert I.G. | Continuously updated data processing system and method for measuring and reporting on value creation performance that supports real-time benchmarking |
US7747572B2 (en) * | 2000-07-28 | 2010-06-29 | Waypoint Global Ii, Inc. | Method and system for supply chain product and process development collaboration |
US20020078175A1 (en) * | 2000-12-15 | 2002-06-20 | Wallace Thomas Tracy | Scorecard wizard |
NZ522675A (en) * | 2001-06-15 | 2006-01-27 | Centranum Ltd | Performance management system |
US20030046125A1 (en) * | 2001-09-05 | 2003-03-06 | Nextstrat, Inc. | System and method for enterprise strategy management |
US20040068429A1 (en) * | 2001-10-02 | 2004-04-08 | Macdonald Ian D | Strategic organization plan development and information present system and method |
US20030069869A1 (en) * | 2001-10-05 | 2003-04-10 | Jane Gronau | Computer aided strategic planning systems and methods |
US6900808B2 (en) * | 2002-03-29 | 2005-05-31 | Sas Institute Inc. | Graphical data display system and method |
US20040210574A1 (en) * | 2003-04-01 | 2004-10-21 | Amanda Aponte | Supplier scorecard system |
-
2003
- 2003-05-15 US US10/439,145 patent/US20040230463A1/en not_active Abandoned
-
2004
- 2004-05-07 AU AU2004239364A patent/AU2004239364A1/en not_active Abandoned
- 2004-05-07 EP EP04731560A patent/EP1625536A1/en not_active Withdrawn
- 2004-05-07 CA CA002523044A patent/CA2523044A1/en not_active Abandoned
- 2004-05-07 WO PCT/CA2004/000682 patent/WO2004102432A2/en active Application Filing
Also Published As
Publication number | Publication date |
---|---|
US20040230463A1 (en) | 2004-11-18 |
AU2004239364A1 (en) | 2004-11-25 |
EP1625536A1 (en) | 2006-02-15 |
CA2523044A1 (en) | 2004-11-25 |
Similar Documents
Publication | Publication Date | Title |
---|---|---|
Cho et al. | Development of a new technology product evaluation model for assessing commercialization opportunities using Delphi method and fuzzy AHP approach | |
Levy et al. | SMEs: aligning IS and the strategic context | |
Jadhav et al. | Evaluating and selecting software packages: A review | |
Zbaracki et al. | Managerial and customer costs of price adjustment: direct evidence from industrial markets | |
US20040230463A1 (en) | Performance management by results-based scorecarding | |
Schroeder et al. | Six Sigma: Definition and underlying theory | |
Jæger et al. | Identification of environmental supply chain bottlenecks: a case study of the Ethiopian healthcare supply chain | |
US8032392B2 (en) | Business enablement system | |
US20040167789A1 (en) | Method and system for determining, analyzing, and reporting a cost reduction in a procurement | |
Kliem | Managing lean projects | |
Phusavat et al. | Productivity/performance measurement: case application at the government pharmaceutical organization | |
Lamjahdi et al. | Toward a model to apprehend the complexity of manufacturing firm’s overall performance | |
Powell | Greening the supply chain: Are formal environmental management systems appropriate for the needs of small and medium-sized enterprises? | |
Parnaby et al. | Managing by projects for business success | |
Rosenberg | The global supply chain and risk management | |
Rahmat et al. | Barriers to Reverse Logistic on Implementation of Reverse Logistic: A Case of Malaysian Small and Medium Enterprise | |
Jakkan | Designing a framework to develop capabilities for adopting AI/ML technologies in the supply chain | |
Makaleng | Reverse logistics challenges in manufacturing pharmaceutical companies in the city of Tshwane | |
Po-Lynn | Framework for Managing an Efficient and Effective Pharmaceutical Supply Chain in Malaysia | |
Nurprihatin et al. | Digital Dashboards to Track Performances of Order Management Division Using SCOR and Waterfall Model | |
Chabchoub et al. | Associating risk management with a performance measurement system: Case of academic libraries | |
Agarwal | Monitoring the Role of Management Strategies on Production Managers and Product Quality in Retail Sector of Ireland: A Case Study of Apache Pizza | |
Matlhoko | Risk Management in Supply Chain Information Flow: A study of selected Food Processing Companies in South Africa. | |
Aoun et al. | Does ICT enable innovation in Luxembourg? An empirical study | |
Gashi | Business Intelligence as a Mangement Tool; Case study in Performance Dashboard Implementation |
Legal Events
Date | Code | Title | Description |
---|---|---|---|
AK | Designated states |
Kind code of ref document: A2 Designated state(s): AE AG AL AM AT AU AZ BA BB BG BR BW BY BZ CA CH CN CO CR CU CZ DE DK DM DZ EC EE EG ES FI GB GD GE GH GM HR HU ID IL IN IS JP KE KG KP KR KZ LC LK LR LS LT LU LV MA MD MG MK MN MW MX MZ NA NI NO NZ OM PG PH PL PT RO RU SC SD SE SG SK SL SY TJ TM TN TR TT TZ UA UG US UZ VC VN YU ZA ZM ZW |
|
AL | Designated countries for regional patents |
Kind code of ref document: A2 Designated state(s): BW GH GM KE LS MW MZ NA SD SL SZ TZ UG ZM ZW AM AZ BY KG KZ MD RU TJ TM AT BE BG CH CY CZ DE DK EE ES FI FR GB GR HU IE IT LU MC NL PL PT RO SE SI SK TR BF BJ CF CG CI CM GA GN GQ GW ML MR NE SN TD TG |
|
121 | Ep: the epo has been informed by wipo that ep was designated in this application | ||
WWE | Wipo information: entry into national phase |
Ref document number: 2523044 Country of ref document: CA |
|
WWE | Wipo information: entry into national phase |
Ref document number: 2004239364 Country of ref document: AU |
|
WWE | Wipo information: entry into national phase |
Ref document number: 2004731560 Country of ref document: EP |
|
WWP | Wipo information: published in national office |
Ref document number: 2004239364 Country of ref document: AU |
|
WWP | Wipo information: published in national office |
Ref document number: 2004731560 Country of ref document: EP |